Tuesday, July 31, 2012

On March 23, 2007, a reception was held at the Tamiment Library at New York University. The occasion was the official opening of the archives of the Communist Party USA. The keynote speaker was Gerald Horne, a leader of the progressive movment and contributing editor of the Political Affairs, the journal of the Communist Party. He made special mention of the legacy of the party which helped a rising African American politician "find his identify".

Take a look at the other heros of the blogger who originally posted this as well.

Karl Marx Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.[1]

Friedrich Engels

V.I. Lenin

J. V. Stalin Before the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, researchers who attempted to count the number of people killed under Stalin's regime produced estimates ranging from 3 to 60 million.[91] After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives also became available, containing official records of the execution of approximately 800,000 prisoners under Stalin for either political or criminal offenses, around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulags and some 390,000 deaths during kulak forced resettlement – with a total of about 3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.

Rosa Luxemburg was a Marxist theorist, philosopher, economist and revolutionary socialist of Polish Jewish descent who became a naturalized German citizen. She was successively a member of the the Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD), and the Communist Party of Germany (KPD). After their deaths, Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht became martyrs for Marxists.

Dr. Norman Bethune was a Canadian physician t known for his service in war time medical units during the Spanish Civil War and with the Communist Eighth Route Army (Ba Lu Jun) during the Second Sino-Japanese War. A purported Communist, he wrote that wars were motivated by profits, not principles.

John T. Bernard Communist Congressman from Minnesota's Iron Range, 8th Congressional District... elected on the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party ticket

William Z. Foster

Paul Robeson His advocacy of anti-imperialism, affiliation with Communism, and criticism of the US brought retribution from the government and public condemnation. He refused to rescind his stand on his beliefs and remained opposed to the direction of US policies.

Wyndham Mortimer Mortimer was the First Vice President of the UAW from 1936 to 1939. A member of the Communist Party USA from about 1932,.

Palmiro Togliatti Italian Communist Party leader and courageous anti-fascist. Togliatti helped to shape and create the modern-day Communist Party club which has successfully been used by the working class to defeat the fascist menace, build unions, and fight capitalist exploitation, colonialism, & imperialism all over the world.

Elizabeth Gurley Flynn

Jim Buck

W. E. B. DuBois

Che Guevara Che Guevara was, after all, Fidel Castro’s executioner. Felix Rodriguez, the Cuban-American CIA operative who helped track him down in Bolivia and was the last person to question him, says that Che during his final talk, admitted to “a couple thousand” executions. But he shrugged them off as all being of “imperialist spies and CIA agents.

Otto Kuusinen Heroic Finnish Communist and internationalist

Yusuf Dadoo was a Muslim Indian South African communist and anti-apartheid activist

Frank Marshall Davis

Ho Chi Minh (Father of communist Vietnam)

Gus Hall

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party

Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party

By Gerald Horne

Note: This is the text of a speech delivered at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University.

First of all, I would like to thank both the CPUSA and NYU for this marriage – it is one, perhaps not made in heaven but no less celestial and lofty for that. The thrust of my brief remarks is to suggest that the history of the CPUSA and, indeed, the global movement of which it is a part, has been distorted grievously by the infestation of anti-Sovietism and anticommunism and the opening of these wonderful archives should not only lead to a reassessment of the party but help to push back the right-wing which has profited so handsomely from anti-Sovietism and anticommunism – forces which have brought this nation to the brink of catastrophe, not only in Iraq and the Middle East generally but vis-à-vis China as well. I suggest in these remarks that future generations will not necessarily be as seized as this one apparently is with how and why the former USSR was a supposed "Evil Empire" and how and why some in the US – e.g. the CPUSA – could support this state; I think future generations in the US will take note of the fact that the presumed primary victims of the so-called ‘Evil Empire – in Soviet Russia, for example – tend to agree with President Putin, whose popularity ratings are about double those of the current US President, in his assertion that the fall of the USSR was the greatest geo-political catastrophe of the 20th century. I think future generations in the US-as my remarks suggest will wonder instead how and why the US aligned with so-called Islamic fundamentalism against the former USSR – an appropriate question, I think, as we sit in the shadow of the former World Trade Center – particularly given that the period from 1941-1945 demonstrated decisively that these two nations could collaborate for mutual advantage.

Let me begin by quoting the fortunately retired NY Times right-wing hack columnist William Safire: "Before Nixon died," he said, "I asked him – on the record – if perhaps we had gone a bit overboard on selling the American public on the political benefits of increased trade with China. That old realist," continued Safire, "who had played the China card to exploit the split in the Communist world, replied with some sadness, that he was not as hopeful as he had once been: "We may have created a Frankenstein [monster]," said Nixon.

Nixon, the hard-boiled realist was on to something for although contemporary analysts have managed to convince the chattering classes in this nation that the former Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight and that China’s role in the encirclement of Russia had little or nothing to do with the retreat of socialism, that China’s waging war on socialist Vietnam or backing genocide in Cambodia or collaborating with US imperialism and apartheid South Africa in Angola thereby causing over-stretching of resources in Moscow – none of this had anything to do with the tumultuous events of 1989-1991.

Yet, once again, history has proven to be a cruel teacher and taskmaster for because of Nixon’s decision to "exploit the split in the Communist world," U.S. imperialism just exchanged one Communist antagonist in Moscow for a far larger, far stronger Communist antagonist in Beijing. Future dictionaries may well illustrate the definition of the phrase "Pyrrhic victory" with a picture of Nixon’s trip to Beijing in 1972. In fact a future project for a comparative diplomatic historian is to analyze how long French elites thought they had pulled a fast one on Britain by backing the rebellious colonists in North America at the end of the 18th century and compare when did it dawn that they may have outsmarted themselves with how long it took US elites to realize that they were in an analogous position to French elites when it comes to China or how long did it take British elites to recognize that they had erred grievously when approximately 100 years ago they began to build up Imperial Japan as their watchdog in Asia – certainly London was aware of their blunder by December 7, 1941.

To be sure, certain perspicacious journalists have recognized that with its spectacular growth rates, its astonishing $1 trillion in foreign reserves (part of which is slated to be invested globally which will be shaping global markets for decades to come), its space program – including shooting down a satellite – its busy activity in resource rich Africa, China presents a formidable challenge to US imperialism going forward. In that context I recommend to you a raft of books that I have reviewed in the CP journal, ‘Political Affairs,’ particularly Joshua Cooper Ramo’s ‘The Beijing Consensus’ or Ted Fishman’s ‘China Inc.’ or the recent book by Financial Times columnist, James Kynge, ‘China Shakes the World.’ Unfortunately, this journalistic insight has not trickled down to the scholars, most of whom are still peddling the fool’s gold of "Cold War triumphalsm’, blithely unaware that the Cold War may be seen by future generations not as an era of US victory but an era not only of Asian recovery – as China and India followed Japan into the front rank of nations with monumental consequences for the fate of white supremacy – but, ironically, as some were chortling about the supposed "death of communism", Communist parties in Beijing especially, and to a degree in New Delhi and Tokyo were strengthening. Indeed, just as anticommunists in the 1950s had a bitter battle over "who lost China?" – or how did the CP take over in China – future anti-Communists may well be asking "who lost the US?", i.e. how did US imperialism lose its pre-eminent position in a so-called uni-polar world? Ironically, China policy will be Exhibit A when these future analysts begin to answer these questions.

Now it is often said that every generation has to rewrite history. For example, at one time there was a prevalent "moonlight and magnolias" version of slavery and Reconstruction that fundamentally portrayed "happy Negroes" during the slave era and portrayed the period following slavery as a dastardly period of Negro misrule and corruption. This began to change in the 1930s with the publication of Du Bois’ magisterial ‘Black Reconstruction’ and changed decisively with the publication of Eric Foner’s ‘Reconstruction.’"

One of the reasons why I personally – and I daresay future generations – are so pleased by the depositing of these CPUSA archives is because it is painfully obvious that the history of the Communist movement in this nation is long overdue for a massive rewriting and these archives will prove indispensable in that process.

It is easy to see why future generations will be displeased with much of the present history that has been written to this point about the Communist Party because it has been incredibly biased, one-sided, deeply influenced by the conservative drift of the nation – not unlike pre-Du Bois histories of Reconstruction – and, fundamentally, anticommunist.

For this exhilaration at the collapse of the Soviet Union has continued even though, I think, future generations may eventually view the events of even recent weeks as a blaring wake-up call, that we are residing in the midst of a tectonic shift basically induced by Nixon’s fateful decision to "exploit the split in the Communist world", which opened the door for massive direct foreign investment in the Chinese economy thereby creating an economic juggernaut that is viewed by hawks in Washington as a threat that combines the most fearsome aspects of the old Soviet Union with that of US imperialism’s other antagonist of decades past – Japan of the 1980s and 1930s.

For a future scholar might well entitle a future book on the crisis faced by US imperialism, ‘From 9/11 to 2/27." For just as 9-11 announced the arrival on the global stage of yet another antagonist that is a direct product of Cold War strategy – so-called "Islamic fundamentalism" –2/27 marked the moment when a hiccup in Shanghai contributed to convulsions on Wall Street. The consequences of the chain of events unfolding is hard to predict – though I do find it curious that recent coverage in the bourgeois press of the debate on protection for private property in China seemed to be strangely supportive of the "left" in Beijing, as if it was thought that this might slow down the Chinese juggernaut.

Of course, the challenge from Asia is sufficiently formidable for the myrmidons of imperialism and white supremacy but there is another aspect of the heralded Cold War that is now coming back to bite this nation in a big way – I refer, of course, to the aforementioned so-called "Islamic fundamentalism." The "death of communism" analysts are akin to the man who jumps out of the Empire State Building, and as he passes the 40th floor shouts out "so far, so good." In other words, the collapse of the USSR seems like a good thing to critics – if you ignore the impact of "Islamic fundamentalism" in years to come, as this tendency was a foundational aspect of the Soviet Union’s collapse and U.S. imperialism’s strategy to attain this goal.

Now I find it heartening that so many are joining the amen chorus that asserts that George W. Bush is the worst President in US History – the follically challenged Donald Trump being the latest among these. Now admittedly this title of being the worst has considerable competition – how can one omit the slave-owning, Native American hating Andrew Jackson, for example? – yet, in any case, I think that future generations may well conclude that yes, Bush, was the worst, but the errors were as much those of his class as they were of himself individually.

For let us not forget that it was more than 25 years ago during the administration of Jimmy Carter, then Democratic Party leader, that US imperialism escalated its interference in the internal affairs in Afghanistan – as his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski conceded in a remarkable interview a few years ago – thereby helping to induce Moscow’s escalated assistance to a besieged left-wing government in Kabul, in an attempt to bleed the Soviet Union figuratively and literally. This strategy involved the inflaming of religiosity in the Islamic world and, as is well-known, brought Osama bin Laden himself to Kabul and the creation of foreign legions of Islamic fighters who are now bedeviling the planet from New York to Algiers to London to Madrid to Baghdad to Kashmir to Southern Thailand to Manila to Bali. Again writers like Kathy Gannon, Robert Dreyfuss, Mahmood Mamdani and others have written in detail about this Faustian arrangement – and, again, I have reviewed many of these works in ‘Political Affairs.’

But even these writers, as perceptive as they are, have not detailed the entire scope of the monstrosity that was created in order to subdue the former USSR and, yes, future scholars will be spending a considerable amount of time exploring this phenomenon. For, as is well known, it was once thought that Shia Islam was little more than a seedbed for the emergence of Communists, as the history of both the Tudeh Party of Iran and the Iraqui Communist Party exemplified. But then with its maniacal anticommunism, US imperialism engineered the downfall in 1953 of the progressive Mossadegh regime, not least because of its displeasure about its oil policies, which led directly to the rise of Ayatollah Khomeni in Teheran, then collaborated with Saddam Hussein in the repression of Iraqui Communists. Again, Brzezinski, a prolific writer, wrote openly about the strategy of whipping up nationalism as a counterweight to Marxism.

Nevertheless, scholars of the future, I’m sure, will be struck by the evasions employed by those who have sought to deny a connection between the Cold War and the fact that US imperialism and so-called "Islamic Fundamentalism" shared the same trench during this conflict. These fathers refuse to take responsibility for parentage. The question is often narrowed to asking in regard to the largest covert action in CIA history – the intervention in Afghanistan – whether Osama bin Laden himself was on the US Payroll; being a multi-millionaire bin Laden hardly needs a check from Washington in any case. Or they try to argue that the CIA basically was a passive conduit for funding to Pakistani intelligence, which then should be held responsible for US policy in Afghanistan that led to the building up of so-called Islamic fundamentalism – as if Washington has no control or influence with Islamabad, which is ludicrous, of course.

A tell-tale sign of how the bourgeoisie chooses to interpret the rise of so-called "fundamentalism" will be revealed later this year when Universal Studios releases the blockbuster movie, ‘Charley Wilson’s War’ starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts; the best-selling book that this movie is based on whitewashes CIA aid to the anticommunist rebels in Afghanistan and refuses to confront the fact that part of the payoff to Pakistan in backing this US sponsored insurgency was at least tacit or willfully ignorant support for the so-called "Islamic bomb", which is now causing sleepless nights in Washington for fear that the US stooge Musharraf will be overthrown in Islamabad and this deadly weapon will fall into the hands of Osama bin Laden’s allies. The preliminary reading is that Hollywood will provide its mass audience with the ‘moonlight and magnolia’ version of history – but we shall see. Stay tuned.

Of course, this strategy of relying on ultra-nationalism in order to destabilize a secular left has had a domestic counterpart. Indeed, the domestic Cold War has had the unsurprising result of weakening the left, strengthening the right and therefore not only making it more likely that the nation will be ensnared by quagmires such as those unfolding in Iraq and, ironically, Afghanistan but, as well, insures that labor will continue to be pulverized by capital at home.

Nowadays, too many scholars feed their audiences a form of verbal comfort food meant to reassure their readers as they sate their appetites. Thus few acknowledge that months before the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the nation was aflame with headlines about the "Plan of San Diego." According to this breathtaking scheme, revolutionary Mexico in the midst of turmoil was collaborating with Japan – and possibly Germany – to reclaim the territories seized by the US during the war of aggression of 1846, establish in its stead independent Black and Native American Republics and, not least, liquidate the Euro-American male population – a subject I write about in my book, ‘Black and Brown:’ Obviously, the obscenity of white supremacy and the appearance that it was a policy driven by a monolithic white community was driving Washington’s victims on this continent to desperate measures. But then came the Bolshevik Revolution and after that the formation of the Communist Party USA with its emphasis on working class solidarity and staunch opposition to white supremacy, as evidenced by its signature campaigns of the 1930s – the labor organizing drives that led to the formation of the CIO and the crusade to save the Scottsboro 9 from lynch law. Such efforts helped to convince many in the Black community particularly that this nation could be redeemed and schemes like the "Plan of San Diego" lost resonance. This conclusion was reached in the face of an unrelenting effort by Tokyo to convince African Americans that this land of white supremacy was beyond redemption and that Japan was the "champion of the colored races." Black Communists like James Ford and Ben Davis – who was elected to the NYC Council from Harlem – argued vehemently against this notion with no small result, a subject I discuss at length in my book ‘Race War!’.

Yet after Japan was vanquished not least due to this popular front of left and center – both domestically and globally – US imperialism turned its venom on the Black Left in particular, forcing it to retreat and thus preparing the ground for the rise of various forms of nationalism, including the Nation of Islam which was born in the 1930s as something of an acolyte of Tokyo as evidenced by their still articulated notion of the so-called "Asiatic Black Man." Strikingly, the Nation – with its notions that those who are defined as "white" are little more than devils – did not begin to grow until the 1950s when the left was in retreat.

Indeed, the reigning metaphor for US politics might be Jack Benny, the comedian. You remember the violin playing comic from Waukegan, Illinois, known to be a notorious cheapskate, tight with a dollar, who was notorious for a routine when faced by a robber who placed a gun at his head and shouted, "your money or your life." Benny, the cheapskate worried more about money than life itself, then tells the robber as he ponders, "I’m thinking, I’m Thinking." The unrealistic wing of the bourgeoisie, like Benny, has been willing to run the risk of losing life itself by allowing right-wing nationalism to flourish on the grounds that this environment is better suited for guaranteeing profit-making.

Nevertheless, scholars e.g. Mary Dudziak and Thomas Borstelman among others have pointed to the unavoidable conclusion that the civil rights gains of the 1960s were driven in large part by the existence of the Soviet Union – in that Washington had difficulty winning hearts and minds among the "colored" majority in their ideological contest with Moscow as long as people of color in this nation were treated so atrociously. Therefore, Jim Crow had to go. Similarly, there were those who predicted that the collapse of the USSR would lead to a new birth of freedom for social democracy, as it escaped the supposed albatross of being associated with Moscow. Yet, as the recent elections in Finland demonstrated, social democracy has not flourished in the absence of the USSR (simply trace the baneful impact that neighboring Estonia has had on Helsinki, for example), even in its erstwhile citadel of Scandinavia, where conservatives have made a remarkable comeback. And, yes, it is fair to give the existence of the Soviet Union for the fact that social welfare measures developed in the U.S. in the 1930s, as the ruling elite feared what might arise if they did not compromise, and, yes, the attack on these measures followed like clockwork the demise of the Soviet Union.

Thus, in many ways, we can attribute the agonized retreat of white supremacy to the existence of the former Soviet Union and its allies in the US – who are reflected in profusion in the CPUSA archive – just as we likewise, can give credit for this historic retreat to heroic Haiti, whose victory some two centuries ago against slavery was similarly an important intervention against racism and, likewise, has led to a punishment of Haiti that has lasted to this very day.

This also reminds us that our foremothers and forefathers of the 19th century were similar in many ways to Black Communists in that they were strict internationalists. In fact, I think future scholars will demonstrate that during a time when Washington was in constant conflict with London – most notably during the War of 1812 when the redcoats burned down a good deal of this nation’s capital – leaders as diverse as Frederick Douglass and Ida Wells-Barnett were as close to London as Paul Robeson was to Moscow. This stretches back to the origins of this nation for as historians Simon Schama of Columbia and Cassandra Pybus of Australia have both pointed out in recent worthy books, by far more Negroes fought on the side of the British during the 1776 war than on the side of the rebellious colonists, led by slaveholders e.g. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

It is an elementary part of diplomatic statecraft that an oppressed people – e.g. African Americans – will seek to ally with the antagonists of those who are oppressing them and that those opposed to the oppression of this group (e.g. progressive Euro-Americans) will tend to do the same thing. Indeed, one can argue that even those who have not been oppressed have acted in this fashion. Consider one of antebellum Va.’s leading sons, Matthew Fontaine Maury – a huge statue in his honor continues to stand in Richmond – despite the fact that during the Civil War, this leading Confederate conspired with France, after it seized Mexico, against the U.S. and offered to return California to Mexico if France backed the Confederacy. My most recent book, ‘The Deepest South’, explores this matter in detail. Yet, just the other day, leading legislators in Georgia were pushing a bill to establish a Confederate History Month in April in order to deflect attention away from apologizing for slavery. This is one of the many reasons I do not take too seriously the commonly accepted idea that hostility to Communists stems from their ties to a foreign power – Moscow; if that were true why does this nation continue to honor not only those who tried to overthrow the govt. in order to maintain slavery but conspired with foreign powers in order to do so? – yet there are statutes built in their honor and their deeds are celebrated.

Indeed, I think historians of the future will be struck by the fact that in attempting to assess the impact of the CPUSA, some scholars spent more time seeking out documents in Moscow, as opposed to this country – and, thus, this NYU archive will continue to gain in importance. I am continually struck by the fact that there has been a repetitive ideological tendency reflected in the writings of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Walter Benn Michels, Richard Rorty – and a host of other liberal and social Democratic writers – who lament the decline of a conversation about class and deride what they see as the undue emphasis on race in the U.S. But such analysts rarely put this discussion in the context of a concerted effort by the US to basically outlaw Marxism – and a conversation on class which it has exemplified – as reflected in the Smith Act trials that swept the nation from New York City in 1949 when the entire CPUSA leadership was placed on trial, then jailed, to Honolulu where a similar trial occurred in 1952. It is striking that there are hundreds of thousands of pages of transcripts from these trials which are gathering dusts in archives across this vast land and have yet to be tapped by historians.

When these sources are explored, I think scholars of the future will be struck by, for example, the response in Honolulu when tens of thousands of workers went on strike when labor and CP leaders were convicted of Smith Act violations in 1953 – a response totally unlike the response on the mainland. Of course 98% of these workers were of Asian-Pacific ancestry, which suggests that scholars have also been derelict in analyzing why these workers were less anti-communist than their Euro-American counterparts. In any case, deploring these convictions in Hawaii was an African-American poet and journalist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis, who was certainly in the orbit of the CP – if not a member – and who was born in Kansas and spent a good deal of his adult life in Chicago, before decamping to Honolulu in 1948 at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson. Eventually, he befriended another family – a Euro-American family – that had migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago. In his best selling memoir ‘Dreams of my Father’, the author speaks warmly of an older black poet, he identifies simply as "Frank" as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American, a people who have been the least anticommunist and the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation – though you would never know it from reading so-called left journals of opinion. At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, "Living the Blues" and when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside.

Alan Maki I live in northern Minnesota with my dog Fred, a Chocolate Lab. I have been involved in the peace, labor, civil rights, and environmental movements for over 30 years, and I am a socialist. I would encourage everyone to get involved in promoting the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which came into existence on December 10, 1948; we should strive to use the yearly anniversary of this document to popularize it. We need to struggle to create a more progressive, socially just society where all working people receive real living wages and have a voice at work, and in their communities. I am working with casino workers across Minnesota who are trying to organize a union. I am also working with people in northern Minnesota struggling to save the Big Bog, our primary freshwater aquifer--- this bog is being mined for peat. In my spare time during the spring and fall you can find me fly fishing on the Dark River, a pristine designated trout stream;in the winter ice fishing on Lake-of-the-Woods. I look forward to hearing from you. Nothing human is alien to me.

Exclusive: See This Clip About Obama‘s Relationship With
Communist Frank Marshall Davis From Dinesh D’Souza‘s ’2016′ Film

Posted on July 12, 2012 at 8:12am by Billy Hallowell Print »Email »

The Blaze has secured a second clip from the film. Rather
than focusing upon Obama’s relationship with his brother, this exclusive
footage delves into the president’s kinship with avowed communist Frank
Marshall Davis.

If you’re unfamiliar with this controversial figure,
consider Dr. Paul G. Kengor, author of the upcoming Mercury Ink book about
Davis called “The Communist,” and his recent Blaze contributor piece in which
he further explains who he is. Kengor writes:

I know this area intimately well, given that my next book is
on Obama’s mentor during those precise years: Frank Marshall Davis. I will not
here lay out the litany of Davis’s astonishing career, but, in essence, he was
a literal card-carrying member of Communist Party USA. For decades, he wrote
the most harsh, outlandish pro-Soviet material you can imagine, with his worst
demons being Democrats like Harry Truman and the men in Truman’s
administration—George Marshall among them—who opposed Stalin and the Kremlin
during the darkest days of the Cold War.

As I lay out in the book, Davis’s work was so bad that he
was called to testify on his “Soviet activities” by the Senate Judiciary
Committee (run by Democrats), was carefully investigated by the FBI (Davis’s
FBI file is 600 pages long), and, most remarkably, was placed on the federal
government’s Security Index—meaning that in the event of war breaking out
between the United States and USSR, Davis could be immediately arrested.

And yet, this was the man that Obama’s grandfather, Stanley
Dunham, connected to a young Obama for the purpose of mentoring—precisely
during these high school years.

Frank Marshall Davis is another of those radical
associations in Obama’s past. There are so many, and so unusually bad, that
Obama, if he were a typical citizen, probably wouldn’t get a security clearance
for an entry-level government job.

In the clip, D’Souza takes viewers through the intriguing — some would
argue disturbing — relationship between Obama and Davis. In the footage,
D’Souza speaks, in detail, with Kengor about this connection and attempts to
break it down for viewers. (See original link above for video)

Watch it, below:

Barack's grandfather sought out a mentor for his grandson

Transcript:

D’Soua: He found an aging journalist and poet named Frank Marshall Davis. The two became
close over eight years until Obama left for college. I had the opportunity to
talk to cold war historian Paul Kengor author of a book on Frank Marshall
Davis.

D: What is the connection between Obama and Frank Marshall
Davis?

Kengor: In Dreams of My Father he mentions Frank by name 22
times. He never refers to him once as Frank Marshall Davis.

Why is that?

Frank Marshall Davis was a very controversial political
figure. He wrote for a number of
publications that even started in Chicago in the late 40s for a communist party publication called The
Chicago Star

He did that for two years and then he moved on to Honolulu,
Hawaii and there he wrote for a paper called the Honolulu record .If you read these columns they were so breathtakingly
anti-american . I found numerous comments over over and over again where heis
mocking and ridiculing the american way .

Stanley Dunham, the grandfather was also on the left . Obama
himself recalled how his grandfather and davis would get hammered drunk they
would spend hours together. He saw in davis a potential mentor , role model for
Barack

So Frank Marshall Davis was not some kind of a benign civil
rights figure ?

Frank Marshall Davis was considered such a threat by the FBI
that they actually placed him on a federal government security index. What that means is that he was considered such a potential threat that
if a war ever broke out between the US
and the soviet union that Frank Marshall Davis could be placed under immediate arrest .

Why has the media avoided reporting on th4e connection
between Davis and Obama?

Umm, it would have to. I mean if we ever had a president of
the United States who was mentored by some meaningful degree by a literal
pro-soviet pro-communist card carrying
member of communist party USA card number 47544, that alone, the pro-Obama media
has to ignore

Why Obama's radicalism matters: According to his own narrative, Barack Obama
was bred by communists, raised by communists, mentored by communists and was
employed by communists. By his
admission, he sought out communists as preferred parties with whom to fraternize. Obama's radical Marxism is at the very core
of why he does what he does, why he will continue to do so and why America
remains in dire peril with every day he occupies the White House. Everything Obama has actualized or attempted
— from his exploitation of high health-care costs to surreptitiously
compromising the Constitution, to his desperation to regulate the Internet and
any other means of public address into which he might conceivably insinuate
government's putrid tentacles, to his proclivity for religious persecution, to
his spending us into destitution — have their roots in Marxist doctrine.

The following is the transcript of a brilliant and inspiring speech by Mitt Romney from Jerusalem's Old City. I see only one word missing..."Palestinians," although they and the evil they perpetrate is clear. He reiterates that Jerusalem is the Capital City of Israel; that our ideals and values are much the same; that America will not stand by and watch horror played out again; that true peacemakers never allow despotic regimes to spread their hate to free peoples; that we have a solemn duty to believe Iran when they tell us they will destroy Israel [and the U.S.]; that the people of Israel are among our "dear friends," and that we both cherish free enterprise, and millions in the Middle East would cherish the same if they had the opportunity.

He mentions the athletes and coaches who died in the 1972 Munich Olympic attack 40 years ago, by Palestinians known as Black September. Did you know that the day after those murders, the Olympics were shut down for that day and flags of all countries were flown at half mast - EXCEPT the flags of Arab countries, which continued to fly high with heinous pride?

Barack Obama still has not set foot inside Israel during his Presidency. He has ushered Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in through a side door of the White House, walked out of White House meetings with him - leaving him and his staff in a Conference Room, and embraced nothing of Israel except his own false rhetoric. Obama has been to the Middle East numerous times - but never to Israel. UPDATE: Romney also made the point that an Islamist is now running Egypt. Two thumbs up for calling the ruler what he is.

I urge all American Jews to vote for Mitt Romney, especially those of you in Florida, Ohio, Nevada and Pennsylvania. Get out the vote for him if you can. Donate to him if you can. [All emphasis in the text below is mine.]

Pullout Quote:

By history and by conviction, our two countries are bound together. No individual, no nation, no world organization, will pry us apart. And as long as we stay together and stand together, there is no threat we cannot overcome and very little that we cannot achieve. ~ Mitt Romney in Israel 7-29-12

Begin transcript of Mitt Romney's speech in Jerusalem's Old City, July 29, 2012

Thank you for that kind introduction, Mayor Barkat, and thank you all for that warm welcome. It's a pleasure and a privilege to be in Israel again.

To step foot into Israel is to step foot into a nation that began with an ancient promise made in this land. The Jewish people persisted through one of the most monstrous crimes in human history, and now this nation has come to take its place among the most impressive democracies on earth. Israel's achievements are a wonder of the modern world.

These achievements are a tribute to the resilience of the Israeli people. You have managed, against all odds, time and again throughout your history, to persevere, to rise up, and to emerge stronger.

The historian Paul Johnson, writing on the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Jewish state, said that over the course of Israel's life, 100 completely new independent states had come into existence. "Israel is the only one whose creation can fairly be called a miracle," Johnson wrote.

It is a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.

Our two nations are separated by more than 5,000 miles. But for an American abroad, you can't get much closer to the ideals and convictions of my own country than you do in Israel. We're part of the great fellowship of democracies. We speak the same language of freedom and justice, and the right of every person to live in peace. We serve the same cause and provoke the same hatreds in the same enemies of civilization.

It is my firm conviction that the security of Israel is in the vital national security interest of the United States. And ours is an alliance based not only on shared interests but also on enduring shared values.

In those shared values, one of the strongest voices is that of your prime minister, my friend Benjamin Netanyahu. I met with him earlier this morning and I look forward to my family joining his this evening as they observe the close of this fast day of Tisha B'Av.

It's remarkable to consider how much adversity, over so great a span of time, is recalled by just one day on the calendar. This is a day of remembrance and mourning, but like other such occasions, it also calls forth clarity and resolve.

At this time, we also remember the 11 Israeli athletes and coaches who were massacred at the Munich Olympics forty years ago. Ten years ago this week, 9 Israeli and American students were murdered in the terrorist attack at Hebrew University. And tragedies like these are not reserved to the past.They are a constant reminder of the reality of hate, and the will with which it is executed upon the innocent.

It was Menachem Begin who said this about the Ninth of the month of Av: "We remember that day," he said, "and now have the responsibility to make sure that never again will our independence be destroyed and never again will the Jew become homeless or defenseless." "This," Prime Minister Begin added, "is the crux of the problems facing us in the future."

So it is today, as Israel faces enemies who deny past crimes against the Jewish people and seek to commit new ones.

When Iran's leaders deny the Holocaust or speak of wiping this nation off the map, only the naïve - or worse - will dismiss it as an excess of rhetoric. Make no mistake: the ayatollahs in Tehran are testing our moral defenses. They want to know who will object, and who will look the other way.

My message to the people of Israel and the leaders of Iran is one and the same: I will not look away; and neither will my country. As Prime Minister Begin put it, in vivid and haunting words, "if an enemy of [the Jewish] people says he seeks to destroy us, believe him."

We have seen the horrors of history. We will not stand by. We will not watch them play out again.

It would be foolish not to take Iran's leaders at their word. They are, after all, the product of a radical theocracy.

Over the years Iran has amassed a bloody and brutal record. It has seized embassies, targeted diplomats, and killed its own people. It supports the ruthless Assad regime in Syria. They have provided weapons that have killed American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has plotted to assassinate diplomats on American soil. It is Iran that is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and the most destabilizing nation in the world.

We have a solemn duty and a moral imperative to deny Iran's leaders the means to follow through on their malevolent intentions.

We should stand with all who would join our effort to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran - and that includes Iranian dissidents. Do not erase from your memory the scenes from three years ago, when that regime brought death to its own people as they rose up. The threat we face does not come from the Iranian people, but from the regime that oppresses them.

Five years ago, at the Herzliya Conference, I stated my view that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability presents an intolerable threat to Israel, to America, and to the world. That threat has only become worse.

Now as then, the regime's claims that it seeks to enrich nuclear material for peaceful purposes are belied by years of malign deceptions.

Now as then, the conduct of Iran's leaders gives us no reason to trust them with nuclear material.

But today, the regime in Iran is five years closer to developing nuclear weapons capability. Preventing that outcome must be our highest national security priority.I want to pause on this last point. It is sometimes said that those who are the most committed to stopping the Iranian regime from securing nuclear weapons are reckless and provocative and inviting war.

The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers. History teaches with force and clarity that when the world's most despotic regimes secure the world's most destructive weapons, peace often gives way to oppression, to violence, or to devastating war.

We must not delude ourselves into thinking that containment is an option. We must lead the effort to prevent Iran from building and possessing nuclear weapons capability. We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so. In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you.

These are some of the principles I first outlined five years ago. What was timely then has become urgent today.

Let me turn from Iran to other nations in the Middle East, where we have seen rising tumult and chaos. To the north, Syria is on the brink of a civil war. The dictator in Damascus, no friend to Israel and no friend to America, slaughters his own people as he desperately clings to power.

Your other neighbor to the north, Lebanon, is under the growing and dangerous influence of Hezbollah.

After a year of upheaval and unrest, Egypt now has an Islamist President, chosen in a democratic election. Hopefully, this new government understands that one true measure of democracy is how those elected by the majority respect the rights of those in the minority. The international community must use its considerable influence to ensure that the new government honors the peace agreement with Israel that was signed by the government of Anwar Sadat.

As you know only too well, since Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, thousands of rockets have rained on Israeli homes and cities. I have walked on the streets of Sderot, and honor the resolve of its people. And now, new attacks have been launched from the Sinai Peninsula.

With Hezbollah rockets aimed at Israel from the north, and Hamas rockets aimed from the south, with much of the Middle East in tumult, and with Iran bent on nuclear arms, America's vocal and demonstrated commitment to the defense of Israel is even more critical. Whenever the security of Israel is most in doubt, America's commitment to Israel must be most secure.

When the decision was before him in 1948, President Harry Truman decided without hesitation that the United States would be the first country to recognize the State of Israel. From that moment to this, we have been the most natural of allies, but our alliance runs deeper than the designs of strategy or the weighing of interests.

The story of how America - a nation still so new to the world by the standards of this ancient region - rose up to become the dear friend of the people of Israel is among the finest and most hopeful in our nation's history.

Different as our paths have been, we see the same qualities in one another. Israel and America are in many respects reflections of one another. We both believe in democracy, in the right of every people to select their leaders and choose their nation's course.

We both believe in the rule of law, knowing that in its absence, willful men may incline to oppress the weak.

We both believe that our rights are universal, granted not by government but by our Creator.

We both believe in free enterprise, because it is the only economic system that has lifted people from poverty, created a large and enduring middle class, and inaugurated incomparable achievements and human flourishing.

As someone who has spent most of his life in business, I am particularly impressed with Israel's cutting edge technologies and thriving economy. We recognize yours as the "start-up nation" - and the evidence is all around us.

You have embraced economic liberty. You export technology, not tyranny or terrorism. And today, your innovators and entrepreneurs have made the desert bloom and have made for a better world. The citizens of our countries are fortunate to share in the rewards of economic freedom and in the creativity of our entrepreneurs. What you have built here, with your own hands, is a tribute to your people, and a model for others.

Finally, we both believe in freedom of expression, because we are confident in our ideas and in the ability of men and women to think for themselves.We do not fear open debate. If you want to hear some very sharp criticisms of Israel and its policies, you don't have to cross any borders. All you have to do is walk down the street and into a café, where you'll hear people reasoning, arguing, and speaking their mind. Or pick up an Israeli newspaper - you'll find some of the toughest criticism of Israel you'll read anywhere. Your nation, like ours, is stronger for this energetic exchange of ideas and opinions.

That is the way it is in a free society. There are many millions of people in the Middle East who would cherish the opportunity to do the same.These decent men and women desire nothing more than to live in peace and freedom and to have the opportunity to not only choose their government but to criticize it openly, without fear of repression or repercussion.

I believe that those who oppose these fundamental rights are on the wrong side of history. But history's march can be ponderous and painfully slow. We have a duty to speed and shape history by being unapologetic ambassadors for the values we share.

The United States and Israel have shown that we can build strong economies and strong militaries. But we must also build strong arguments that advance our values and promote peace. We must work together to change hearts and awaken minds through the power of freedom, free enterprise and human rights.

I believe that the enduring alliance between the State of Israel and the United States of America is more than a strategic alliance: it is a force for good in the world. America's support of Israel should make every American proud. We should not allow the inevitable complexities of modern geopolitics to obscure fundamental touchstones. No country or organization or individual should ever doubt this basic truth: A free and strong America will always stand with a free and strong Israel.

And standing by Israel does not mean with military and intelligence cooperation alone.

We cannot stand silent as those who seek to undermine Israel, voice their criticisms. And we certainly should not join in that criticism. Diplomatic distance in public between our nations emboldens Israel's adversaries.

By history and by conviction, our two countries are bound together. No individual, no nation, no world organization, will pry us apart. And as long as we stay together and stand together, there is no threat we cannot overcome and very little that we cannot achieve.

Thank you all. May God bless America, and may He bless and protect the Nation of Israel.

(left wing anti-republican pro-arab)

15 hours ago – But it was Romney himself who suggested — in a speech that skirted violating ... from almost any American politician, Republican or Democrat.

While Mitt Romney’s boorish remarks about the Olympics in London were humiliating enough, the comments emanating from him and his campaign in Israel were still more embarrassing – and potentially more damaging, too.

Seeking to consolidate support on the religious far right, both Christian and Jewish, the Republican candidate and his chief foreign policy surrogate confirmed their ideological obedience in the most abject fashion possible. Without articulating a real policy, their statements reflected such complete submission to neoconservative ideology that even the Bush administration appears moderate by contrast. That they would do so within hours of a high-dollar fundraising event in Jerusalem, attended by major right-wing donors such as Sheldon Adelson, added a jarringly mercenary tone to their reckless words.

Dan Senor, the former Bush administration spokesman in Baghdad who now serves as Romney’s senior foreign policy advisor, startled reporters on Sunday when he promised the most hawkish Israelis a free hand to mount a military attack against Iran. “If Israel has to take action on its own, in order to stop Iran from developing that capability, the governor would respect that decision,” said Senor during a briefing that preceded Romney’s address in Jerusalem. The predicate for such an attack, according to Senor, would not be Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, but its attainment of the capacity to do so.

(Haaretz = anti-Israel Israeli paper)

1 day ago – In Jerusalem speech, it was Romney's voice but Netanyahu's words ...his Democratic rival during his speech in Jerusalem on Sunday, saying ...

Contrary to his promise not to criticize the U.S. president on foreign soil, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney slammed his Democratic rival during his speech in Jerusalem on Sunday, saying public expressions of diplomatic distance is damaging to Israel.

"Diplomatic distance that is public and critical emboldens Israel's adversaries," said Romney, alluding to the Obama administration's stance on Israel.

Romney's speech followed a day spent meeting Israel's leaders on his official visit to the country. Joining the crowd was billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who has donated millions of dollars to Romney's campaign, and those of other Republicans.

Romney opened his speech by saying it was a "moving experience to be in Jerusalem," which he described as, "Israel's capital."

He went on to mention the U.S.-Israeli relationship, saying, "We serve the same cause and we have the same enemies. The security of Israel is a national security interest of the United States."

In Jerusalem speech, it was Romney's voice but Netanyahu's words

Netanyahu embraces Romney as no Israeli prime minister has ever before embraced a candidate running against an incumbent U.S. president.

Romney's staff picked the 150 guests carefully. Religious American immigrants dominated the crowd; secular Jews and native-born Israelis were few and far between. Those present included Jewish-American millionaires, settler leaders like the former chairman of the Yesha Council of settlements Israel Harel, and former Netanyahu aides such as Dore Gold, Naftali Bennett, Ayelet Shaked and Yoaz Hendel.

Speaking to roughly four dozen donors at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, Mr. Romney suggested that cultural differences between the Israelis and the Palestinians were the reason the Israelis were so much more economically successful than the Palestinians, without mentioning the impact that deep trade restrictions imposed by the Israeli government have had on the Palestinian economy. He also vastly understated the income disparities between the two groups.

“As you come here and you see the G.D.P. per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000, and compare that with the G.D.P. per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality,” he said.

In an interview with the Associated Press, Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, called Mr. Romney’s remarks “racist.”

Story tools

Netanyahu as villian? Mitt Romney’s foreign policy speech to the Jerusalem Foundation in Israel on Sunday qualified him to be President—of Israel. His observations were as remarkable for what he didn’t say as for what he did. They could have been written by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, for they parallel his thinking almost exactly, and they were

Mr. Romney didn’t mention the Palestinians (although he later made an invidious comparison of Palestinians to Israelis that was deemed racist by Palestinian officials), nor did he offer any remarks on the settlements in the West Bank—arguably Israel’s most pressing problem. Indeed, he explicitly called for Americans not to engage in any criticism of Israel at all, since Israelis seemed to be capable of self-critique.

Apologizing for Iranian holocaust deniers??He said, “When Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust . . .” branding them as Holocaust deniers. Iran’s leaders, in fact, have never denied the Holocaust. To be sure, they have questioned its causes and results in ways that are inaccurate, but they never denied that it happened.

Supporting Iran's nuclear program? Mr. Romney hinted broadly that the United States would support a military strike against Iran. This would not be to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon as is current U.S. policy, but rather to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capacity. This is code for shutting down or destroying Iran’s entire nuclear development program.

Mitt Romney’s speech in Jerusalem today was simply Reaganesque. I caught it by accident and could not tear myself away. It was like waking from a horrible 4-year long nightmare to find that the sun still shines on the city on the hill. It brought tears to my eyes and joy to my heart. This man will be the next president of the United States. He will have his work cut out for him… undoing all the evil that has been wrought. But he is a good and moral man – a man of God – and I believe he is up to the task. He certainly has a spine and he loves America, Israel and God. Which is way more than you can say for the current Marxist in the White House.

Romney spoke to the Jerusalem Foundation today in a speech that showed what true leadership looks like. He spoke with confidence and certainty. He did not equivocate. His delivery was measured and eloquent. He was, in a word, erudite. There was no hint of the careless arrogance and condescension so frequently seen and heard from our Elitist-In-Chief. Instead, Mitt was clarity and reality.

I mean, really, when have you ever heard Obama, at any podium anywhere, speak the words, “I love this country.”

His intent and words were so far removed from the tripe Obama pushes, it was staggering. In the opening statement alone, Romney makes it clear that Israel is God’s land and it is the fulfilled promise of a miracle, not a tragedy. He also made it very clear that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.

Not only does Romney say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, he infers that the US Embassy should be moved there. From Yahoo! News via Atlas Shrugs:

JERUSALEM (AP) — Standing on Israeli soil, U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Sunday declared Jerusalem to be the capital of the Jewish state and said the United States has “a solemn duty and a moral imperative” to block Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability.
“Make no mistake, the ayatollahs in Iran are testing our moral defenses. They want to know who will object and who will look the other way,” he said. “We will not look away nor will our country ever look away from our passion and commitment to Israel.”
The presidential election hovered over the speech. The Old City formed a made-for-television backdrop behind Romney, while some of his campaign donors listened in the audience.Romney’s declaration that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital was matter-of-fact and in keeping with claims made by Israeli governments for decades, even though the United States, like other nations, maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv.He did not say if he would order the embassy moved if he wins the White House, but strongly suggested so in a CNN interview.“My understanding is the policy of our nation has been a desire to move our embassy ultimately to the capital (Jerusalem),” he said, adding, “I would only want to do so and to select the timing in accordance with the government of Israel.”His remarks on the subject during his speech drew a standing ovation from his audience, which included Sheldon Adelson, the American businessman who has said he will donate millions to help elect Romney to the White House.Romney’s embrace of Israel was on display earlier in the day when he met with Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and other leaders. He also visited the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site, where he was mobbed by worshipers.
[...]“We recognize Israel’s right to defend itself,” he told the audience. Earlier, the aide, Dan Senor, previewed the speech for reporters, saying that “if Israel has to take action on its own, in order to stop Iran from developing the capability, the governor would respect that decision.”
[..]
In his speech, Romney said Syrian President Bashar Assad “desperately clings to power” in Damascus in the face of an attempted overthrow, but he did not call for his removal.
He noted that Egypt is now headed by an “Islamist president, chosen in a Democratic election. … The international community must use its considerable influence to insure that the new government honors the peace agreement with Israel that was signed by the government of Anwar Sadat” more than three decades ago, he said.
A goal of Romney’s overseas trip is to demonstrate his confidence on the world stage, but his stop in Israel also was designed to appeal to evangelical voters at home and to cut into Obama’s support among Jewish voters and donors. A Gallup survey of Jewish voters released Friday showed Obama with a 68-25 edge over Romney.Romney and other Republicans have said Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel, noting statements the president has made about settlements and his handling of evident Iranian attempt to develop nuclear weapons.
Tehran is closer to developing nuclear weapons capability than before, Romney said. “Preventing that outcome must be our highest national security priority.”
In a March speech before a pro-Israel lobby in Washington, Obama warned of “loose talk of war” that serves only to drive up oil prices. “Now is not the time to bluster,” he said then. “Now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in and sustain the broad international coalition we have built.”[...]
Even so, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said before the speech that“all the sanctions and diplomacy so far have not set back the Iranian program by one iota.”

Iran and every other radical Islamist theocrat, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, have been put on notice. Our next president wants them at the top of his dance card. Cha, cha, cha! I adore the fact that Romney and Netanyahu have been buds since the early 70s. You are known by your friends, isn’t that right Comrade Obama? And you are equally known by your enemies.

In a hit deep into the bleacher seats that will leave an eternal mark, Romney took solid aim at Obama by pointing out what Israel has built:

We both believe that our rights are universal, granted not by government but by our Creator.
We both believe in free enterprise, because it is the only economic system that has lifted people from poverty, created a large and enduring middle class, and inaugurated incomparable achievements and human flourishing.
As someone who has spent most of his life in business, I am particularly impressed with Israel’s cutting edge technologies and thriving economy. We recognize yours as the “start-up nation” – and the evidence is all around us.
You have embraced economic liberty. You export technology, not tyranny or terrorism. And today, your innovators and entrepreneurs have made the desert bloom and have made for a better world. The citizens of our countries are fortunate to share in the rewards of economic freedom and in the creativity of our entrepreneurs. What you have built here, with your own hands, is a tribute to your people, and a model for others.

Clarity. No equivocation. No suggestion that some vague bureaucracy made it all possible. Rights from God, not government. And who built it? “[Y]ou … with your own hands.”

Daniel Pipes highlights the many statements of Romney that are paeans to the Jewish state and its extraordinary ties to the United States:

Our two nations are separated by more than 5,000 miles. But for an American abroad, you can’t get much closer to the ideals and convictions of my own country than you do in Israel.

It is my firm conviction that the security of Israel is in the vital national security interest of the United States.

We have seen the horrors of history. We will not stand by. We will not watch them play out again. It would be foolish not to take Iran’s leaders at their word. They are, after all, the product of a radical theocracy. … We have a solemn duty and a moral imperative to deny Iran’s leaders the means to follow through on their malevolent intentions.

our alliance runs deeper than the designs of strategy or the weighing of interests. The story of how America – a nation still so new to the world by the standards of this ancient region – rose up to become the dear friend of the people of Israel is among the finest and most hopeful in our nation’s history. Different as our paths have been, we see the same qualities in one another. Israel and America are in many respects reflections of one another.

the enduring alliance between the State of Israel and the United States of America is more than a strategic alliance: it is a force for good in the world. America’s support of Israel should make every American proud. We should not allow the inevitable complexities of modern geopolitics to obscure fundamental touchstones. … A free and strong America will always stand with a free and strong Israel.

By history and by conviction, our two countries are bound together. No individual, no nation, no world organization, will pry us apart. And as long as we stay together and stand together, there is no threat we cannot overcome and very little that we cannot achieve.

At the end of the speech, Romney asked that God bless Israel as well as America. May it be so always. When was the last time that we heard a leader ask for a blessing on another country besides his own? It’s been a long time. America is turning back to God and it will be our salvation. Greatness is not found on a podium or in a spotlight, but on your knees in prayer.

Mitt Romney delivered a speech in Jerusalem on Sunday. ... “We mustnot delude ourselves into thinking that containment is an option. ... itself by suggesting Mr. Romney is ready to support a unilateral military strike by Israel.

6 hours ago – Mitt Romney told Jewish donors Monday their culture is part of what has allowed them to ... He called Jerusalem the capital of Israel in a speech Sunday evening, prompting .... Afghan Air Force May Not Be Ready to Fly Solo ...

6 hours ago – While deejays put in work for Obama, his campaign would rather notmake much noise about ... In his Jerusalem speech, Romney went on to insist that “we cannot stand silent as ... Get ready to party like it's 1988, Democrats.

1 day ago – US presidential candidate to say in speech in Israel that stopping Iran's nuclear ... Mitt Romney would back unilateral military action by Israel against Iran's nuclear ... embarked on a series of high-level meetings in Jerusalem. .... Gaffes show Mitt Romney not ready to be US president, says Obama aide; 3.

1 day ago – JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Republican candidate Mitt Romney, presenting ...In a foreign policy speech in Jerusalem, Romney voiced strong support for the ...Though he adopted an aggressive tone, Romney did not go as far as his ... the British by questioning whether London was ready for the Olympics, ...

1 day ago – JERUSALEM -- Standing on Israeli soil, U.S. presidential candidate MittRomney on ... He did not say if he would order the embassy moved if he wins the White House, ... In his speech, Romney said Syrian President Bashar Assad .... with ambivalence: A stream of post-recession tourists ready for fun but